Blogger’s Code of Conduct? Ignorance Here to Stay
April 11, 2007 · By Greg Farries
Tim O’Reilly is drafting a Blogger’s Code of Conduct and has released the first draft of the code. I’m highly skeptical that it will have any positive affect on the rather “rough around the edges” blogosphere.
We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility. We present this Blogger Code of Conduct in hopes that it helps create a culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive conversation. [via: Werner Patels]
Looking at the comments of the many commentators on ThePolitic, civility isn’t the word the comes to mind.
Update: Make sure to share your opinion in the comments.
I’ve found that reciprocity is a pretty good principle…never be ruder than the person you’re talking to. Sometimes that can actually elevate a thread from garbage to a discussion worth having.
It’s interesting that blogs all seem to develop their own cultures in terms of what level of civility is expected; despite occasional troll-induced collapses, they seem to eventually struggle back to their own natural level in a surprisingly short time. And individual commenters seem instinctively to figure out the appropriate level (if they stick around long enough): I’ve noted that folks who are completely wild at Small Dead Animals or McLellands (to be scrupulously non partisan in my choice of examples) are capable of intelligence and civility in other settings.
“Looking at the comments of the many commentators on ThePolitic, civility isn’t the word the comes to mind.”
Fair enough. However, posts by some contributors also lack any sense of civility.
Frankly, some posts are so outrageous that nobody should be surprised that they inspire “pointed” comments. In fact, these posts seem to be designed to encourage uncivil replies.
Maybe, maybe not. But I’m always surprised when otherwise reasonable people transform into ranting and raving lunatics when a provocative post is posted.
And I don’t consider linking to an “outrageous” opinion/weblog grounds for using “pointed” comments.
Agreed – I’d like to raise the level of debate here a bit more. I’ve taken a very hands off approach here over the past few years; however, I’m going to be demanding we all take a more civil approach to both posting and commenting.
But as someone mentioned in a comment posted yesterday, it is a two-way street. I will be excepting civility from everyone, not just commentators.
The great thing about ThePolitic is that we’re not a echo-chamber for partisan positions. While most of the authors are ThePolitic could be described as conservative, most of the commentators are NOT.
I believe this provides a great balance and certainly adds to the overall quality of the weblog. Commentators are a vital part of any weblog and I want to make sure everyone gets a change to share their opinion in a environment that encourages intelligent debate, not hate filled propaganda.
Everyone agree?
“…in a environment that encourages intelligent debate, not hate filled propaganda.”
Sounds good in principle. BUT (and I’m not trying to start us off on the wrong foot here) I can think of a couple of posts here in the not-too-distant past whose objective seemed to be elicit strong reaction.
It’s a two-way street: you can’t initiate a discussion with a talk-radio style statement of attack, then expect a sober, rational discussion of an issue.
If you are serious about this Greg, then I think it may be important to post a your own code of conduct for thepolitic, and then stick to it. While it is true that you cannot be responsible for the posting of commentors (besides deleting them), I think that Ryan makes a very good point about the nature of the posts from some of your regular contributors. If you want an informed discussion, then by all means, encourage it with a good jumping off point. If you don’t, then continue to allow some of the posts that have recently been put online.
Oh what the heck, how about balbulican and Smarter than Ezra umpire this site and that’s that.
Maybe, maybe not.
So you do agree that some posts here are designed to encourage uncivil replies.
The point’s been made already, but it bears repeating: You can’t have your cake and it too.
“how about balbulican and Smarter than Ezra umpire this site and that’s that.”
I think you may be missing my point, Yeesh. The way the moderators choose to run this site is absolutely and entirely their own business. And there’s nothing “wrong” with sites that promote straight political flaming as opposed to discussion. It’s just a different niche, it’s great for folks who like that sort of thing, and those who don’t can just stay away.
What I’m saying (and a couple of other people too) is that if you start a thread with a post whose theme is “all niggers must die”, “fuck the Jews”, or “Catch AIDS and rot, Gay Scum”, it is a bit disingenuous to suggest that one is simply attempting to initiate a civil discussion on the theme of multiculturalism or Contemporary Sexual Mores.
I would love to participate in this earnest discussion of “who started it,” but feel as though I’d be in a conflict of interest by doing so. Of course, that hasn’t stopped any of you…
Shrug. That’s not really the point, Aaron. The discussion is about establishing a baseline of civility for discussion. As a commenter, the only thing I can control is my own comments. As one of the writers here, you control the starting point of the discussion in the threads you initiate. Where you set the bar is entirely up to you.
I actually don’t think this discussion is really about you, Aaron.
Personally, this is what I feel: when you have a world of information at your finger-tips, it’s unforgiveable to be part of the machine that disseminates disinformation and bad science. The problem begins right there.
[...] when we were having such an animated discussion about civility, The Politic’s Greg Farries had this to say about the idea of simply linking to someone else’s asinine/insulting/offensive output (see [...]